would without any superstition towards | carried the alternative of war.—The hon. them, apply to them the same general and learned gentleman next adverted to principle as to other men, and say, that the observations made in defence of the if they could not be tried fairly, they instructions given to sir W. A'Court. ought not to be tried at all. His right No man in that House blamed the gohon. friend perceiving that, among all the vernment for placing a squadron in the parties that more or less divided that as- bay of Naples, for the protection of Brisembly, there had been expressed only tish subjects and British property. As one opinion of intense abhorrence against to the other object of the squadron-the the conduct and avowed principles of the removal of the royal family in case of holy league, was aware that there was no danger-it no doubt was consistent with chord in that House on which his elo- neutrality, and therefore it was unnecesquence could operate, but that which sary to argue this point. The declaration vibrated to the love of peace; and there- that our shores were likely to afford the fore he had created an imaginary party, best asylum for the royal family, would, whom he represented as wishing to however, have come with a better grace plunge the country into the horrors of a from other lips, than those which, for the war. To this imaginary opponent whom last seven years, had been advocating a he wished to combat, he had imputed cruel and inhospitable Alien bill. But he sentiments which had never been uttered would ask one question connected with in that House, but which had all along this topic-Was not the unfortunate king been abjured by every hon. member who conveyed from Naples in a British ship, had spoken on the subject. If the oppo- when he proceeded to appear before the sition had recommended remonstrance at self-constituted, usurping, tyrannical, and the beginning of the atrocious invasion of insolent tribunal at Laybach? Had not Italy, his right hon. friend told them that all Europe read with horror the account remonstrance must end in war. His hon. given by the duke de Gallo, first, of the friend (Mr. Ward) had said, that as he interview between him and prince Methad loved peace, he wished our govern- ternich, and then of that between him and ment had spoken out sooner; and with the poor infatuated monarch himself, in that sentiment he cordially agreed. The the presence of prince Metternich? From policy for which they blamed ministers this account, it appeared, that the unforwas, the neglecting to take any measures tunate monarch had not been allowed to for preventing what had now covered see his old friend and counsellor alone, Italy with confusion, and might involve but had merely been brought, as it were, all the nations of Europe in war. Did from his prison, and permitted to hold a any man ever hear, till this night, that conversation with him in the presence of remonstrance from one nation to another the minister of the allied sovereigns. It must necessarily be followed by war? was not, therefore, against the violence of Did any statesman ever lay down such a the people of Naples, but against that of athe principle? On the contrary, did not the the monarchs at Laybach, that the royal history of Europe abound with instances family required protection. The noble of amicable remonstrances against war, lord (Castlereagh) had said, that he did which had never been followed by hostili- not agree with the general principles ties? If France and England had ex- avowed by the allied sovereigns; but that pressed, six months ago, their opinion he was not prepared to contend that they against the war with Italy, would that were not justified in the line of conduct opinion have been despised? Were they which they were pursuing. The declarasunk so low in the scale of national con- tion of the emperor of Austria, however, sequence, as not to be able to prevent was directly at variance with that of the their own allies from engaging in such a noble lord; for he stated, that the gowar? Was it for this that we were called vernment of England perfectly agreed the protectors of Europe, and boasted with the principles on which the alliance of having set all Europe free? Now, he were acting, but that particular circummaintained, in the first place, that the stances prevented it from taking an active policy of early remonstrance would have part in the proceeding. Did these words been pacific; and that, by neglecting convey any idea that the Austrian cabinet it, war had been ultimately rendered al- supposed that the English government most inevitable; and, in the second place, did not concur in the principles which rehe denied that remonstrance necessarily gulated the allied sovereigns? If his right VOL. IV. 4 T principle. He denied it; but he would allow that there was a conflict now waging between the principles of an arbitrary and those of a representative form of government; and from the bottom of his heart he hoped that the representative form of government would prove triumphant. As the letter of sir W. A'Court was written merely for the purpose of informing the Neapolitan government that the British fleet would only be employed in case of any personal outrage being offered to the royal family of Naples, he should beg leave to withdraw it. The motion was accordingly withdrawn HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, March 21. AMERICAN LOYALISTS.] The entry in the Journals of the 17th February 1793, of a resolution for an address on behalf of the American Loyalists, having been read, hon. friend, instead of reading the history | the monarchical and the democratical of Elizabeth's reign in a book written by a respectable French refugee, had consulted an English work of standard authority, and written by no less celebrated an author than lord Bacon, he would have found that the zeal with which Elizabeth espoused the cause of the oppressed people of the Netherlands and of the French refugees, was dwelt on as one of the greatest glories of her reign. He had thus defended himself and his hon. friends against an attack, which, with whatever skill and eloquence it had been made, must fall to the ground, and "like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a wreck behind."-His right hon. friend had asked, why they should give their support to those who would not take the English constitution as the basis of their liberty; and scemed to think that by that argument, which was quite inapplicable to the present case, he had found out an inconsistency in their conduct. But, the only opinion which he had ever asserted on this subject was, not that the Neapo Mr. W. Courtenay said, that the address litan constitution was a good one, but which had been just read stated, that it that the independence of nations had been would have been superfluous for the attacked by the flagitious conduct which House to express the regard of the nation the allied powers had exhibited towards for every description of men who had, in the Neapolitans. Indeed, it appeared to the cause of his majesty, risked their lives him, that the allied powers, by their and forfeited their properties, during a circulars from Laybach, had been long and calamitous war. It was in conguilty of the same attack upon the formity with the sentiments contained in independence of nations that the National that address, that he rose to bring before Convention had been, by its decree of parliament, the case of persons who had July 1792, of which the overt acts were so risked their lives and forfeited their the seizure of Belgium and Savoy. In properties. The House would see the the same manner that the convention had difficulties he had to meet in bringing forattacked the independence of the world, ward claims in 1821, which had their had the members of the holy alliance at- foundation so long ago as the peace of tacked the independence of every nation 1783. But he hoped to satisfy the House in Europe, and thus had left the question that the lapse of time could not create a of peace and war to them only as a bar to those claims. At the commence matter of policy and prudence. ment of the American war, the legislature of America took every means to prevail on persons of property and influence in that country, to raise what was then called the standard of rebellion. It was, on the other hand, the duty of the government of this country to call on the exertions of individuals in America, who owed allegiance to the king of England. Accordingly, royal proclamations and resolutions of that House were issued from 1776 to 1783, calling upon individuals to join the royal standard. At the peace of 1783, there were two classes of persons who had lost their property in the service of England, and who therefore had claims Sir R. Wilson made a short reply, in the course of which he vindicated the Carbonari from the charge of being the promoters of assassination. He likewise eulogized them for the wisdom with which they had projected, the bravery with which they had executed, and the glory with which they had consummated, their revolution of Naples, and stated that the principles which they professed were so widely diffused throughout Italy that there was scarcely a single Italian who was not a Carbonari. The right hon. gentleman had said, that there was a conflict now waging throughout the world between for compensation on this country. The House was aware that by several acts of the legislature of America, the persons of the loyalists had been attainted, and their property confiscated. By the 4th and 5th articles of the treaty of 1783 it was agreed that there should be no impediments thrown in the way of the mutual recovery of debts, and that the congress should do all in its power to have restitution made to the loyalists. The persons who had suffered in consequence of their attachment to the cause of England, were persons who had resided in America, and whose property had been confiscated, and English merchants who had lost their property, in consequence of commercial transactions with America. At the time when the address which had been read by the clerk was agreed to by the House, it was the general understanding, that full and complete compensation should be made to those who had suffered in the cause of England. In evidence of this, he might refer to the speeches of the late lord Thurlow, the late chief baron Macdonald, then solicitor-general, to Mr. Wilberforce, and many others. By an act passed in 1783, certain commissioners were appointed to carry the treaty into effect, and to ascertain who were the loyalists who had claims upon the country. There was one class of loyalists to whom the commissioners refused compensation, namely, those who had vested their property in America. To those persons the commissioners said, "We will not listen to your claims until you first get from America what you can." By a treaty which was entered into in 1794, America un dertook to make full compensation to British creditors, and to prevent legal impediments from being thrown in their way. In 1789, Mr. Pitt called upon that House to make compensation to those who had lost their lands in America, and also to those who had been ruined in their professions in consequence of their attachment to the English interest: the House up to the present hour were in the habit of making good that compensation by an annual vote. But for the British creditors no compensation was made, no redress was granted to them-if he excepted their share of a sum of 600,000l. which, by a treaty entered into in 1811, America bound itself to pay, and which was accordingly paid. It was material to observe, that it never was considered that the sum of 600,000, was to be taken as full compensation; if it were, that, indeed, would be a full answer to the claim which he now put forth. It was allowed on all hands, and it was so decided in a court of justice in America, that all the treaties entered into between America and England, subsequent to the peace of 1783, recognized the claims of the loyalists. The government of this country, he contended, was bound to make compensation to them, as from America they had no expectation whatever. It was true a very considerable time had elapsed; still, the House would recollect the material fact, that they had never ceased to put forth their claims. After contending, that the case which he now brought before the House had never been decided upon, and urging, that there was much greater danger of a bad example from refusing, than from granting the claims, the hon. member moved for " An Account of the Dates and Descriptions of all Communications that have taken place between his Majesty's Government and any of the persons styling themselves American Loyalists, or their agents, since the 4th of April 1812, to the present time; together with Copies of such of the said Communications as bear date respectively on or about the 5th of April and 3rd Dec. 1812; the 21st April, 6th and 10th July 1813; 26th May and 2nd Sept. 1814; 31st Jan. and 17th May 1815; 19th June 1817; 8th April 1819; and 1st May 1820.” › Mr. Dickinson supported the motion, and contended, that as the claimants had done every thing to keep their claims alive, they were not to be opposed by a sort of statute of limitation, which was set up in the mind of the chancellor of the exchequer. He knew no stronger claim upon this country, than that of persons who had sacrificed their property and the interests of their families from attachment to its cause. Mr. W. Smith said, that these gentlemen had for forty years been entitled to compensation, and now the very length of time during which justice had been withheld, was made an argument against their demand. When they saw every day compensation made for the loss of offices which those who had lost them had no right to expect to retain, it seemed extraordinary that so great a reluctance should exist to accede to the claims of those who had lost every thing through their attachment to this country. He re collected the American war, and had differed from these loyalists as to the part they had taken ;-nay, he had thought at the time that they deserved punishment; but that punishment would never have amounted to one-fiftieth part of what they bad since endured. Mr. Wilberforce said, if ever any set of men were deserving of consideration, it was these claimants, who had drunk to the very dreg the bitter cup of that "hope deferred," which "maketh the heart sick." The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, that men in office were obliged to look with more scrupulousness, and perhaps want of liberality, upon the demands of individuals, than they would be disposed to do if the claim were upon their own private funds. The case made out by the hon. member was unquestionably very strong. He by no means meant to contend that the lapse of time was a bar to the demands now made, because those demands had been unremittingly pressed; but it was high time to come to a final decision whether any thing or nothing should be granted. Neither did he mean to argue that any thing more than a partial compensation had hitherto been afforded to any of the parties. He then proceeded to notice the precise stipulations of the treaty of commerce with the United States in 1794, and followed it by some observations upon the breach of faith of which America had been guilty with regard to the creditors whose demands she thereby undertook to satisfy. The dispute upon this point had been finally, amicably adjusted; and the total amount of the claims was settled by commissioners, at about 1,450,000l., out of which the loyalists, exclusive of commercial creditors, required 250,000l. He combated the position, that the attorneygeneral for the United States had contended in the courts of the republic, that the claimants were barred in limine by the attainder upon them for their conduct. In illustration, he referred to various documents, and especially to the report of a board of joint commissioners, appointed under the 6th article of the treaty of 1791. He was ready to produce the papers now called for; but he thought it right to state that there were many grounds on which these claims ought to be resisted. To those documents he should beg leave to add others, that would bring the case fully before parliament. It was painful to resist the claims of those who were not only suffering, but meritorious; but he could not separate the case of the loyalists from that of the merchant creditors; and he considered both of them as suffering from the common fate of war. Dr. Phillimore considered the case made out by the hon. and learned mover as strong a one as ever came before the House, The chancellor of the exchequer had, in his view of the question, been led into a confusion of the rights of the loyalists with those of the American creditor. But, according to all national law, the two were quite distinct, and their claims rested upon a very different foundation. Mr. Lockhart said, that he was an advocate for compensation to that description of American loyalists who, being domiciled in America, had sacrificed their property to their allegiance: while he would protest against any attempt to indemnify the mere British merchant, who might have made unsuccessful speculations in America at the period alluded to. Mr. Courtenay said, he had no objection whatever to the distinction which his hon. friend had desired to establish. The motion was agreed to. REPEAL OF THE MALT TAX.] Mr. Western rose to move for the repeal of the late additional Malt tax, and maintained that upon every consideration of feeling, justice, and policy, that motion ought to be agreed to; for no tax existed which was so injurious to the comforts of the people or to the interests of agriculture. ture. He protested against the idea generally held out, that any member who called for the repeal of a tax was bound to propose a substitute, for that would imply that he who discovered the oppres sion or injustice of a tax was not entitled to complain unless he were disposed to become a second chancellor of the exchequer, whose peculiar duty it was, to provide for the financial exigencies of the country. But he the more objected to this idea, because he was an advocate for the reduction of the aggregate amount of taxation. He wished it, however, to be distinctly understood, that he did not desire this reduction, by the exemption of the agriculturists, or any particular class, from the general pressure. He was not one of those who would tax the funds for the support of the poor-rates, or who would recommend any violation of the faith pledged to the public creditor. The amount of the poor-rates was undoubtedly a subject requiring the attention of parliament; but he would not embarrass his present object by any reference to that subject. The purpose of his motion was, to produce the removal of a tax most oppressive in its operation, and in consequence comparatively unproductive to the revenue. In order to show that the tax was unproductive the hon. gentleman then entered into a detailed comparison of the tax upon malt, the growth of barley, and the extent of produce and consumption from the year 1791 down to the present day, showing that in England, Ireland, and Scotland, the produce of barley, and the consumption of malt had diminished, as the tax upon the latter had been advanced. Hence, he concluded, that this branch of the revenue had been egregiously mismanaged. He thought some means might be found to remedy the evil of excessive importation, without infringing upon the spirit of the act of 1815. As to the speculative opinions which had been broached upon the subject of free trade, gentlemen might as well talk of the abstract rights of man as of the abstract principles of free trade. To constitute a free trade, the British agriculturist must possess the same advantages as the foreign grower, but if he started with such a load as the aggregate amount of taxation in this country, while the foreign grower laboured under no such disadvantages, this was any thing but a free trade. Another great source of pressure upon the agriculturist, and indeed upon all classes of the community, was, the operation of the act passed in 1819, vulgarly called Mr. Peel's Bill. He was aware that it would be considered almost profane in that House to call in question the wisdom of that measure, but without impeaching the wisdom of the act, or the abilities of the persons who advised it, he must be permitted to declare his firm conviction that it would never be a permanent act. He called upon the House, as it regarded the principles of justice and policy, and as it valued the prosperity and morals of the country, to agree to the measure which he had the honour to propose. He concluded by moving for the repeal of so much of the act of 1819 as imposed the Additional Duties on Malt. Mr. Mackenzie said, that the extent to which illicit distillation had been carried in Scotland in 1816, had occasioned the act to establish small stills for the express purpose of consuming the inferior grain raised in the remoter districts of Scotland. In consequence of this change of system, a great increase of the quantity of spirits distilled had taken place up to the period of imposing the additional duties on malt, when the inferior species of barley was rendered perfectly unsaleable, because it was only barley of the best quality which could afford to pay the duty. The barley in the greater part of Scotland was of an inferior quality, and the consequence of imposing the additional duties was, that almost the whole of this barley was thrown into the hands of the illegal distiller. The duty on ten gallons of English spirits was 3l. 5s. 6d. and in the northern districts of Scotland the same quantity of illicit spirit could be purchased for 21. 10s. It was almost unnecessary to say any thing more in order to show that this was a premium on smuggling, and that such a policy affected the revenue no less than the morals of the country. With regard to the effect of this tax in reducing the consumption, it appeared that on the quantity of spirits made in Scotland during the last year, there was a diminution of 100,000 gallons, as compared with that of the preceding year. He believed he stated the uniform sentiments of the magistrates of Scotland, when he said, that there was no increase of revenue to be purchased by this tax, which was not more than counterbalanced by the evils which it brought upon the country. Mr. Ellice said, that if he could reconcile to himself that the tax might be dispensed with, without injustice to the public creditor, or injury to the wants of the state; and if there could be any rational hope, that the distress of the landed interest could be relieved by the repeal, he would support it; and he could do so with the more consistency, as he had reprobated its imposition in 1819; when the other measures then determined upon with respect to the currency, rendered the country less able to bear the additional 3 millions of taxes. Now, with respect to the expediency of repealing any tax, he had often stated his opinion, that, under the peculiar circumstances in which we were placed, and with a view to the permanent benefit and security of the fundholder, if the country was really able to wade through the difficulties |